Can you elaborate Gene, I am a State Registered Professional in private practice and was denied because I was told (unfortunately not in writing) bad areas (ie:Richmond, Oakland, SF Western Addition) that I sometimes perform my profession is outside San Mateo's jurisdiction. I was shocked of their ignorance of the PC.

Oh about three to four years ago under the previous sheriff. They may have change their thinking now, I dont know. I decided it was easier for me to switch residence than attempt suing them. I am more interested in CCW more than anything else. I now feel safe since then.

So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

What would be good cause besides "simple self defense" in San Mateo County? I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?

What would be good cause besides "simple self defense" in San Mateo County? I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?

Why is it that people assume that when I say "no" to a question like "I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?", the assumption is "So simple self defense will work"? The answer to this is no.

The correct answer is what Gene stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang

So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

Interpret this as the following:

"Will Issue for Reasonable Good Cause; known to issue to average persons".

Why is it that people assume that when I say "no" to a question like "I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?", the assumption is "So simple self defense will work"? The answer to this is no.

The correct answer is what Gene stated:

Interpret this as the following:

"Will Issue for Reasonable Good Cause; known to issue to average persons".

First off calm down. Secondly I didn't assume anything, I believe it is you who ASSumed I thought something. You only answered half his question which is why I wanted CLARIFICATION.

The way i have read into this is that the Sheriff wants you to perhaps explain in a little more detail why you want a CCW. I carry large amounts of cash, i am in situations because of work that puts me at risk, i work nights alone in rural areas, ect. They don't want to see the only words of " to protect myself or just self defense. Those words are really obvious to the sheriff.

First off calm down. Secondly I didn't assume anything, I believe it is you who ASSumed I thought something. You only answered half his question which is why I wanted CLARIFICATION.

I suggest reading some of the other counties "good cause" statements that elaborate on specific reasons to carry. It might help if you find one that suits your needs. At least for San Mateo county at this time.

The way i have read into this is that the Sheriff wants you to perhaps explain in a little more detail why you want a CCW. I carry large amounts of cash, i am in situations because of work that puts me at risk, i work nights alone in rural areas, ect. They don't want to see the only words of " to protect myself or just self defense. Those words are really obvious to the sheriff.

It's a little better than that but he's correct: "I wish to acquire a license to carry a handgun for the purpose of self defense" will not fly with Sheriff Munks at this time.

I suggest reading some of the other counties "good cause" statements that elaborate on specific reasons to carry. It might help if you find one that suits your needs. At least for San Mateo county at this time.

I was wondering if the CalCCW map had been updated, and saw that it had. Sacto is now dark green and San Joaquin is light green. Merced is still yellow, which may be out of date. San Benito being dark green is a surprise. But the real surprise IMO is in the Bay Area . . . .

So how many people do we know of with reasonable good cause that have permits in hand? Any update on the good cause statements? I'm eager to get my application rolling since I have pretty decent good cause available

So how many people do we know of with reasonable good cause that have permits in hand? Any update on the good cause statements? I'm eager to get my application rolling since I have pretty decent good cause available

I think we need one more decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before we rock you're "good cause."

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy?

Their policy is their policy. What you were told (that an imminent threat is required to meet GC standard) is NOT the SMSO's policy. As Gray said, CGF has put 2 applicants through successfully with no imminent threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357

When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing.
Excuse my ignorance.

Nordyke is expected any time now. As an appeals case the lower courts will be bound by its result. If we get strict scrutiny for law abiding people through Nordyke then the carry cases are extremely strong. It also sets up sheriff's for future liability if they deny applicants in the interim if we get strict scrutiny, or the like.

OK, I was a little confused with the message. The map shows lime, a previous poster reported the same thing that I experienced, calguns has two people that got one but the SO is now not telling the truth.

I noticed that some counties have good cause statements available. What good cause did the cal gunners use?

Nordyke I decision Occured 04/20/2009. Used intermediate scrutiny and declared 2A's application to state and local government, but said Alameda's ban on gun shows did not violate 2A, used weak intermediate scrutiny test.

Although Chester asserts his right to possess a firearm inhis home for the purpose of self-defense, we believe his claimis not within the core right identified in Heller—the right ofa law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry aweapon for self-defense—by virtue of Chester’s criminal history as a domestic violence misdemeanant. Heller, 128 S. Ct.at 2821. Accordingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutinyis more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarlysituated persons.

This was cited to the Nordyke 3 judge panel in what's called a supplemental authorities letter, aka a 28(j) letter. A sister circuit is considered pursuasive authority.

Nordyke isn't purely a "gun show" case. It was the Nordyke I decision which caused the safe handgun roster challenge (Peņa v. Cid) and the carry challenge (Sykes and now Richards) to go forward, despite the fact that gun show lost.

Great questions and even better answers!! It never dawned on me that I called after the Peruta decision. For what ever reason I never paired the CGF initiative with the court rulings. I just thought that Munks was doing this because of the letter of the law you were making him aware of and the use of McDonald and Heller. Learn something new every day.

Since I'm not a Right Person (well, maybe half-Right ), I've been chewing at the bit waiting for new releases of GC statements and increases in the number of "**TIME TO APPLY**" counties. After being frustrated for awhile I assumed everyone was waiting for Godot, er, Nordyke. If that goes our way (strict scrutiny), it should give legal -- and thereby political -- cover to sheriffs who are our allies to come out of the closest, so to speak, and strike terror in the hearts of those who hate our 2nd A RKBA. (Feel free to use your best Arnold accent to insert here Conan's answer to "What's best in life?" Oops! With the flare up re. Rush Limbaugh and CA Sen. Leland Yee, maybe we can't do that anymore? Or maybe it is only European accents that can still be made fun of? )

Anyway, IIRC, odds are that Nordyke will be released before April. Time for a sandwich and a two-month nap. . . .

And so would I be correct in saying that strict scrutiny must be given when a core fundamental right is severely burdened?

When I was listening to Nordyke III, I listen (at 25:51 into the recording) to one of the Judges asking the opposing counsel why Strict Scrutiny shouldn't be given in this case, and she argued:

Quote:

Judge: "McDonald tells us not only is the Heller right preserved  it applies to the states, but it really emphasized the fact that the Second Amendment is a substantial, fundamental right, suggesting as we've seen in some of these other post McDonald cases, strict scrutiny  perhaps ought to be applied, why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny to this ordinance?"

Opposing Counsel:
"The fundamental rights cases do not pronounce a rule that we use strict scrutiny in the context of all fundamental rights, even when strict scrutiny is used, there are lots of variations on the forms..."

Judge:
"Sure, there has to be a showing on some burden on the right, isn't that correct?"

Opposing Counsel:
"There has to be a showing of a direct burden on the right, and as I tried to point out, here, we have at most an indirect burden on the right to purchase a gun, it makes it less convenient... We... We.. We only... wah... We have a situation in which strict scrutiny is not compatible with the court pointing out that there are several presumptively valid categories of regulation that survives Second Amendment."

I'm not sure how she could prevent the court from applying SS with that kind of argument. It seems like she is helping our side with that argument by saying that we have at most, an indirect burden on the right to purchase. Isn't it a direct burden when we are forced to look at a photo of a firearm we want to purchase because the real thing is banned, and we can't actually pick up the item and safely handle it to feel the weight, the general handling of it, among other things, there's a direct burden, and therefore SS ought to be applied? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but IANAL either...

And then she uses that term "presumptively" at the end of her answer when talking about the regulations that she believes survives the 2A.

I don't see how the court can do anything other than apply SS to the ordinance.